Abstract
Reviewed by: Francis D. Boateng, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
Hong Kong has suffered from decades of colonization by the British, who first arrived in the country in 1841. As Wong notes, the British, upon arrival, immediately took “formal possession of Hong Kong as a Crown Colony” (p. 1). The British occupation caused a paradigm shift of power from the hands of the local people to the new imperialists, who ruled Hong Kong until sovereignty was finally transferred to China on 1 July 1997, under the principle of “one country, two systems.” Though modern-day Hong Kong is considered to be part of China, the country operates on different political, legal, and judicial systems from mainland China. Given its colonial experience, it makes sense to describe Hong Kong policing in three distinct phases: pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial policing. Kam C. Wong’s book Policing in Hong Kong is a comprehensive text that offers detailed historical and contemporary analysis of the development of the Hong Kong Police (HKP).
The book is the first scholarly attempt to advance knowledge on the HKP. Wong discusses several challenging issues that are of great concern to various stakeholders, including the public, politicians, and the HKP themselves. The issues discussed in the text are thematically organized into seven chapters. The text discusses the history of the HKP in chapter 1, with a focus on the theory and practice of colonial policing. The aim here is to enable readers to understand how policing in Hong Kong developed over time. As part of the discussion, Wong offers an account of the arrival of the British and how Hong Kong was governed through the Treaty of Nanking. The author notes that “policing started long before the British ever set foot in Hong Kong” (p. 5).
Chapter 2 discusses one of the controversial issues confronting police departments all over: that is, how the police should be policed. In this chapter, the author examines police accountability measures in Hong Kong and details how police powers could be checked to prevent unnecessary abuses of power by officers. “Hong Kong people have a right to be concerned about unchecked HKP powers. The free exercise of such expansive and coercive powers… affects people’s daily lives” (p. 86). Based on official records, the author analyzes a series of complaints made against the HKP between 1994 and 2004.
In chapter 3, Wong focuses on a specific aspect of HKP powers—power to use force—and investigates the extent to which HKP officers use force and how that can be controlled. The author further discusses several problems with policies and procedures about use of force in Hong Kong. In chapter 4, the text explores the issue of protecting officers on the street while simultaneously maximizing public safety. The author tries to answer a simple question: How best to protect police officers and safeguard the public? This chapter revolves around the debate over the single beat vs. the double beat patrol deployment policy. The double beat patrol deployment policy requires agencies to assign two officers to handle particular situations/assignments or patrol specific locations. Several benefits can be attributed to the double beat patrol policy—enhancement of officer safety, reduction in complaints against the police, and enhances observational capabilities. The debate over the single beat vs. the double beat patrol was sparked by the murder of a young HKP constable who was on duty at the time of his death.
Policing computer crime in Hong Kong is the theme in chapter 5. The chapter extensively examines the emergence and distribution of computer crime in Hong Kong, and as Wong remarks, “the most prevalent computer crime category is hacking, or ‘unauthorized access to computer by telecommunication’” (p. 172). In chapter 6, the text further provides a succinct overview of police powers to intercept communication surveillance ordinance (ICO) in Hong Kong. This discussion brings to the forefront the conventional Chinese concepts of qing, li, and fa, which mean “compassion,” “rite,” and “law”, respectively, to foster better understanding of the legitimacy of the ICO. The author concludes that the ICO legislation process and statutory content did not satisfy the standards of the three conventional Chinese concepts. Finally, in chapter 7, the author compares the Chinese Public Security Bureau to the HKP. By doing that, Wong highlights reform measures adopted by the two institutions as well as reflecting on the institutions’ respective accomplishments.
My overall impression of this book is mixed. The author has to be commended for producing the first scholarly work on the HKP. In addition, Wong demonstrated extensive knowledge in the system of policing in Hong Kong by providing exhaustive information about the HKP. He needs to be applauded because, most often, comparative writers do not provide much detail about the subject matter. However, there are several flaws in this book that reduce its value as a comparative policing text. These issues relate to the organization and presentation of materials in the text. First, the chapters are not organized in a coherent manner, and the author struggles to present the amount of information he has about the HKP. This results in a presentation of materials in the book that sometimes seems arbitrary. Second, the author has a lot of footnotes on each page, and that interrupts the flow of the text. Third, and relatedly, a few of the footnotes are in Chinese language, making these references inaccessible to some readers.